skill_usage_start

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states 'Start tracking skill usage' without explaining side effects, idempotency, or what state changes occur. It does not clarify whether starting tracking creates a session, overwrites existing sessions, or requires prior setup, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded with the key action. It lacks any additional structure or context, but for a simple tool this is acceptable. It would earn a 5 if it incorporated more value without becoming verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is a state-changing operation with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should provide workflow context. It does not mention that a tracking session should eventually be ended with 'skill_usage_end', nor does it explain the lifecycle or any consequences of calling the tool. Parameter schema is complete, but the overall context is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's role.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (skill_name and project_path) are already documented with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable given the schema carries the full burden. There are no enums or nested objects complicating parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Start tracking') and the resource ('skill usage'), making the tool's purpose understandable. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'skill_usage_end' by indicating the starting point of a tracking lifecycle. However, it lacks detail on what 'tracking' entails, leaving some ambiguity about the exact scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention the companion tool 'skill_usage_end' or any prerequisites for tracking. The intended context is only implied by the tool name and terse description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.